Thorne v. Loyola Marymount University
- Rochon
- 1:23-cv-00985
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Thorne v. Loyola Marymount University, Judge Rochon ordered settlement discussions and a joint status letter; she did not decide the lawsuit’s merits.
Braulio Thorne, the persons he seeks to represent, and Loyola Marymount University are required to participate in the ordered settlement discussions and submit the joint letter.
What happened
In Thorne v. Loyola Marymount University, the court ordered the parties to meet for at least one hour within 30 days after the summons and complaint were served. They must make a good-faith effort to settle the case and discuss whether the plaintiff has met the basic requirement of having standing to sue.
If the parties cannot settle, they must also discuss whether court-connected mediation or a settlement conference before a magistrate judge would be useful. Within 15 additional days, they must jointly tell the court whether they settled.
If the case was not settled, the joint letter must ask the court either to refer the case to mediation or a magistrate judge, or to schedule an initial status conference. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon did not decide standing, the claims, or the merits of the case.
The detailed version
- Thorne v. Loyola Marymount University · No. 1:23-cv-00985
- Rochon
- Feb. 8, 2023
Background
Braulio Thorne brought this action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated persons against Loyola Marymount University. The opinion does not describe the claims or the underlying dispute.
Order
The court ordered the parties to meet and confer for at least one hour within 30 days after service of the summons and complaint. They must make a good-faith attempt to settle the action. During those discussions, they were directed to consider whether Thorne satisfied the threshold requirement of standing, meaning the legal requirement that a plaintiff be entitled to bring the lawsuit. The court cited decisions concerning standing but did not decide whether Thorne had standing.
If the parties could not settle the case themselves, they were also required to discuss whether additional settlement discussions through the district’s court-annexed mediation program or before a magistrate judge would be productive at that time.
Within 15 additional days—45 days after service of the summons and complaint—the parties were ordered to submit a joint letter stating whether they had settled. If they had not settled, the letter had to request either referral to mediation or a settlement conference before a magistrate judge, while stating a preference between those options, or an initial status conference.
Disposition
The order establishes settlement and case-management requirements. It does not rule on standing, certify a class, or decide the merits of the lawsuit.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.